An integral aspect of our

It’s such a boneless mess it’s hard to figure out what it’s supposed to do. There’s not a trace of an attempt at an argument in it, no reasons, just a lot of limp saying. It doesn’t even keep track of its own stance.

At a recent forum exploring educational options for the future of Northern Ireland, several influential public figures – including Baroness May Blood – made it clear that the best way forward is for schools to be religion-free zones.

But that, of course, is the thing it’s going to disagree with – duh – so how funny to say “made it clear that.”

Yet around the world there are many others who see that now, more than ever, is a time to engage our young people with issues of faith, belief and values in an educational environment.

She made it clear that P but others see that not-P. This dude is confused.

And why now more than ever? Why not now less than ever? And note the solid wall of ready-made phrases – “engage our young people” “issues of faith, belief and values” “an educational environment.” Dear god can you imagine having to write like that?

This worldwide inter-faith organisation runs a schools programme called Face to Faith. The programme facilitates inter-faith dialogue through video-conferencing and online collaboration with the aim of providing young people with the knowledge and skills needed for meaningful inter- and intra-faith dialogue across a range of cultures.

Why? Why not just give them the knowledge and skills and leave the faith part out? Why not refrain from teaching them to make “faith” central to everything; why not let them just do dialogue and talk about whatever comes up as opposed to making it about “faith”?

I don’t know. James Nelson never says. He just talks a lot more of the same kind of interchangeable styrofoam hackspeak until he gets to the end of the page. The only concrete thing accomplished was that people learned to use the video-conferencing machine, or at least they were shown how to use it, which they will have forgotten by the time anyone actually gets down to doing anything. But don’t fret: it ended on a cheerful note.

The teachers left, keen to explore ways in which they might engage their pupils in constructive dialogue about faith and beliefs.

I left with the strong impression that a culture of sharing is emerging as an integral aspect of our education system. In both cases I look forward to seeing what the future brings.

That’s the stuff! A few more of those and we’ll really be getting somewhere. I’m almost sure of it.

As for why he says now, more than ever, I suspect he’s under the impression that one just can’t have too much religious indoctrina…faith engagery.

I do note that he points out not that this need is unequivocally necessary, but that many others see that it is. Well who cares? Others see that now, more than ever, is the time to insist upon female chastity or defending marriage from the world-wide queerspiracy.

Isn’t there a name for this weasley tactic? Some people think or others have seen? Well let them write the article. At least they might have actual reasons for holding their opinions.

When I was at school (in the UK) we had compulsory Religious Studies which I then chose to take at GCSE level. I found it fascinating and it was very informative. The best aspect of it was that no particular religion was privileged and it gave everyone a chance to see how religious beliefs have changed and grown. This kind of education is crucial to any kind of critical analysis of religion and has really helped me understand why religions are man-made bullshit. I would encourage the teaching of religions in school as another step on the path of making the UK a more atheistic nation.

We had school prayer as well. That really helped indoctrinate us with the idea that prayer was a dreary, unwelcome obligation that we would never have to do again after we left. Much like algebra.

While many people perceive Northern Ireland to be a society saturated with religious language and debate, the reality is that there are very limited opportunities for most of our young people to have dialogue with others of their own age, from different religious or cultural backgrounds, around issues of faith, belief or values.

As I was not born and brought up in Northern Ireland I can’t comment on whether this “intra/interfaith dialogue” is something that takes place between NI young people; my own experience was different. Growing up I do not recall ever discussing “faith” with peers/friends etc. We simply didn’t discuss it. Religion was something that had been pushed on us by parents and in which we took no interest. Given the constant barrage of whining from churches about disaffected, uninterested youth today I find it unbelievable that there is any call among them for these “dialogues”.

I particularly like your expression “styrofoam hackspeak,” which nicely sums up the non-content of the James Nelson thing. Does he really think that by helping children make connexion with their “faith traditions” the political situation will be improved? Especially in view of the fact that those who are already so connected are the most likely to engage in partisan acts like the Orange parades which ended up so disastrously this year.

Tony Blair has the Armstrongian view that all religion is really about compassion, so that by linking more closely with it, they will be more likely to get along with their neighbours who belong to another faith tradition. But lying in wait for everyone in religious traditions are the tools for hate speech and exclusion, not only for compassion and good will. Indeed, in many senses the compassion of the religious, seen as embedded in a tradition which is also xenophobic and exclusive, is only in the first instance directed towards members of one’s own faith, and then to others on the assumption that, seeing their good works, the objects of aid will be more likely to convert to their helpers’ way of seeing the world.

Besides, in a world where the needy are so numerous, who is likely to get help first? Surely our “brothers and sisters in Christ” (or analog in other traditions). Hamas and Hezbollah are not social service agencies as well as terrorist organisations for nothing. Being helped indebts, and indebtedness leads to social division, and social division, where the interface between religions is tense, leads to violence. Styrofoam hackspeak indeed, deliberately cultivated to avoid or hide the real problems of which religions are a primary source. It also seems to me, based on the point raised by Sailor, that where young people are already disaffected by religion it would be preferable to leave them that way, and try to get them together, not for interreligious dialogue, but apart from religious allegiances, so that there is some possibility that the confusions of their elders will not be visited on this generation.

Hmm, surprised at the vitriol. Given the choice between no religious education in schools and multi-denomination education, I would choose the multi. It seems more to “inoclulate” children against picking up a single belief. Left to parents, they will likely teach one point of view. Also, what is wrong with having kids meet kids of other faiths? Isn’t lack of knowledge of others one of the primary reasons for prejudice?

The language problem you point out may be a way to get around the believers, not to sneak in a single belief system. If you came out and said, “we are going to teach kids that all faiths are weird and Muslims are normal people just like you”, a lot of Christians would be against it. I understand the suspicion, but there might be something good going on here.

Absolutely nothing (though I would say of other religions, “faith” having become a stealth hooray-word). On the contrary, they should. But they should just meet them – they shouldn’t be shoved into having discussions about “faith” with them. People should stop treating “faith” as something non-detachable and indispensable. Former prime ministers especially should do that.

You’re new around here, aren’t you? And you’re totally unfamiliar with Tony Blair’s quite sinister ideas about religion in public life, right?

New around here? Are you sitting on your porch with a shotgun whittling on a stick?

I agree, that Tony’s name connected to it adds an additional factor of suspicion. Even so, I try to look at things objectively. I like to think this is more than just an echo chamber.

I always try to remember the story of the Vietnam Veterans memorial in DC. It was designed by a young Chinese-American woman and was not well received by those who wanted a traditional glorification of war. However, once it was up, the vets loved it. Even if Tony has evil intentions, maybe they will backfire.

I seriously don’t see the relevance of Maya Lin’s memorial. Is it just…some people once disliked this one proposed idea but it turned out well, so maybe this completely different proposed idea will turn out well? Surely you can’t be claiming that. There must be more to it, but you forgot to say it.

Oh honestly, it wasn’t meant in such a ridiculous way. It’s just that Blair and the issue of religion in public life has been discussed for years here, and the opinions you’re reading aren’t mere vitriol, and they’re not knee-jerk. We have reasons to be (more than) suspicious of his foundations goals and their effects. Simply because you may not be familiar with those, or with the issue more generally, does not make you “objective” and us “vitriolic” and cynical.